The petty and nonsensical notion that one is, of course, personally opposed to a but believes that the federal government has neither the constitutional warrant nor the resources to address a has, like most right-wing ideas, outlived its usefulness. Yet, here it is again.
The Department’s civil-rights division announced yesterday the terms of its settlement with a New York school district that, in the division’s opinion, was insufficiently aggressive in protecting a young man from “harassment based on sex” by other students. The harassment stemmed from the student’s “fail[ure] to conform to gender stereotypes” — that is, he “exhibited feminine mannerisms, dyed his hair, wore makeup and nail polish, and maintained predominantly female friendships.” The settlement will require the school district to, among other things, “retain an expert consultant in the area of harassment and discrimination based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation” and for the consultant “to conduct annual training for faculty and staff, and students as deemed appropriate by the expert” on the same topics. Oh, and the aggrieved student — who now attends school elsewhere — will get $50,000 and the New York Civil Liberties Union will get $25,000 in attorney fees.
Got that? The federal government was addressing the violation of the Civil Rights of a student who experienced harassment because he was effeminate. Here's where the author of this piece goes off the rails.
Now, let me first say that schools should not allow students to bully and beat up other students for any reason, including being gay or perceived as being gay. But it is quite a leap from that to saying that the federal government should police local school districts in this regard, with further leaps out of the real world if illegal harassment is defined to include name-calling in a high school when a male student dyes his hair and wears makeup and nail polish . . .
Whenever a sentence begins, "Now, let me first say . . ." you just know the author is going to qualify his moral disapprobation by insisting there is a greater, principled notion at stake. In this case, the failure of the local school, the greater New York schools, and the State of New York to defend this young man is as nothing compared to the "jihad" the United States Justice Department and the Obama Administration are leading (according to the title of this article).
Sorry, Mr. Clegg, but your article is nothing more or less than the defense of violence against a young man disguised as some kind of defense of constitutional propriety. For this writer, this young man's safety is far more important than any alleged violation of federalism. Indeed, it seems to me, as the court in the article is a federal court, it was the perfect place to rule on the legitimacy of the Justice Department's standing and seemed quite content to consider it as perfectly legal. I will take a court's decision over your opinion any day. Especially since you seem to think there is something far worse about the federal government protecting a young man from physical and emotional abuse by his peers than that harassment itself.
(h/t, Sadly,No!)
